imogen death threats.....

[gina32]

whats wrong with people?

http://www.metro.co.u...twitter-death-threats

[Ellipsis]

> Max Clifford is paid handsomely to keep things 'out' of the papers, too.

Epic fail this time then?

I'd like to read the text of this super-injunction but, since it's still in place, I guess I can't!

The closest I've seen is: "A footballer is granted an injunction forbidding the publication of his name or allegations he had an affair with Imogen Thomas"

But his name must be there in order for the press to know who they shouldn't be publishing the story about. So the footballer, through this injunction, told the press that there was an alleged affair between himself and Imogen Thomas who, herself, didn't want to go to the press (even though "being in the papers" is her career).

Then, despite her not wanting to go to the press and despite having this super injunction to work with, PR guru Max Clifford fails to stop the story exploding.

This chain of events doesn't stack up.

The alternative, that the footballer had reason to believe that Imogen Thomas would go to the press, and that Max Clifford successfully maximised the PR exposure that the super injunction presented to him, makes perfect sense, by contrast...

[andy-hughes]

Max Clifford has not failed.

If an MP - unfairly in my view - uses Parliamentary privelidge to circumvent a law of which he does not approve, then there is notning Mx Clifford, or anyone else, can do about it.

[paddywak]

Gigs has brought a lot of this on himself, how many times have people in the public eye been involv,ed in similar situations,took some flak for a while then some thing else has come up and his/her little problem fades away. The fact that a super injunction was used kept it in the public eye in fact in many ways it made it worse as people automatically think if he/she is that intent on keepng things secret what else are they hiding?

[Ellipsis]

Nobody is saying the footballer wasn't an idiot (assuming the alleged affair did actually take place).

What's more in question is whether the press and/or Imogen Thomas has a right to a) publish and b) profit from details of the alleged affair at the expense of the footballer's privacy - which is a breach of his human rights according to UN, EU and UK law...

[paddywak]

What about her Human Rights when the injunction tried to prevent his name being mentioned, plastered her name all over the place but denied her the right to tell her side of the story. They've both a pair of idiots but lets be fair it takes two people to have an affair, she might have after what she could get out of him but nobody twisted his arm and forced him into bed with her and by the sound of it it wasn't just a one night stand he knew what he was doing as much as she did now he's got to take lumps

[mightyWBA]

I haven't bought a newspaper for years but still do a paper round and work in a newsagents on a Saturday and Sunday morning....What I don't understand is why anybody is interested in this stuff,it's for Mr Digs and his wife to sort out.
Imogen is just going to be another media hungry lady like Jordan and Kerry Katona..Who really cares about them?
How do they make millions out of it??

The other day Jordan was headlines because her hair extensions had fell out!
I just dont get it!

[andy-hughes]

Doc - i think we can accept that it is unlikely that a liason has not taken place - it's the bigger issue that matters - freedom of speech v. a right to privacy.

[Ellipsis]

> What about her Human Rights when the injunction tried to prevent his name being mentioned, plastered her name all over the place but denied her the right to tell her side of the story.

She has the same human rights as the footballer, or you or I.

The injunction did not plaster her name all over the place. The press did. As I said, I would like to read that injunction. The only person I've heard talk about its contents is Max Clifford.

mightyWBA, agreed.

> What I cannot grasp is, if he did nothing, why go to extraordinary lenghts.

Let's face it, he probably did do something, but he went to those lengths to protect something valuable to him - his privacy.

[Ellipsis]

> it's the bigger issue that matters - freedom of speech v. a right to privacy

I think in this instance she had a right to say nothing, or to go to the press with a story about her wild nights of passion with a Premiership footballer. But she should not have been allowed to name that footballer, or in any way give away his identity, without his permission.

Here in the UK we all have a right to privacy, which can be over-ridden if it's in the public interest to do so (in this case it wasn't, IMO). This article sums it up perfectly:

http://www.yourprivac...rRightsToPrivacy.html

[Ellipsis]

> For right to privacy substitute right to stop wife finding out, that's the bottom line

No, I don't think a super-injunction can do that. It's to stop your private life being discussed and pored over by the press ...

[whitbybabe]

I'm so fed up with her 'Poor Me ' attitude. At the end of the day she knew she was going with a married man. They are both 50% each to blame.

[whitbybabe]

She doesn't deserve death threats though. Stupitidy reigns again.